Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 115 (2003) 91–107 Post-fire carbon dioxide fluxes in the western Canadian boreal forest: evidence from towers, aircraft and remote sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent CO2 flux measurements from towers and aircraft (net ecosystem exchange by eddy covariance) and remote sens-ing/modeling (net primary productivity—NPP) following fire show that the regenerating boreal forest in western Canada has a low initial flux that increases with time since fire. Daytime CO2 fluxes are downward, even after 2 years following fire, although fluxes were upward during the first year after the fire. In summer, the forest is a net carbon sink a few years following fire. A regression of all data gives a relationship where the CO2 flux relative to 10 years following fire = 0.11 + 0.92 log10 (years since fire) (r2 = 0.5). The CO2 flux reaches the same rate as that of a mature site between 10 and 30 years following fire, depending on the site and the data set. Many studies in the literature indicate that soil respiration decreases following fire, although several models assume that heterotrophic respiration increases. If fire reduces respiration and our growing season measurements showing a net sink in early years are widely applicable, it is likely that some models may have overestimated the impact of fire on the carbon balance of the boreal landscape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".